Now is the Time for a Paradigm Shift in How We Think About Facilities, Finance and Planning in Higher Education

Q&A with Peter Zuraw , V.P. of Market Strategy and Development, Gordian 

Why is it important for higher ed leaders to rethink the traditional framework of collaboration between finance, facilities and planning teams? 

While the need for transformation has been present and increasing for the past two decades or more, the pandemic further illustrated why we need to rethink how these leaders and their organizations can proactively work together as institutional leaders. The pandemic forced many institutions to confront the difficult realities, risks and vulnerabilities of the status quo. 

These difficult realities include the student demographic transformation, surging facilities renewal needs and maintenance deferrals, and the growing cultural skepticism of the value proposition of higher education in general. Enrollment declines during the pandemic were amplified by and have continued because of these factors. 

In response, institutions must leverage the way they learned to do things during the pandemic and include the finance, facilities and planning teams more robustly in their forward-thinking processes. These teams took the lead during the pandemic, and it became clear that they were decisive leadership-oriented people who could think about much more than their assigned roles and contribute to the success of the institution overall. 

For example, the pandemic ushered in a sharp rise in remote teaching, which continues on in varying capacities as the pandemic wanes. This new mode of teaching means that examining our investments in existing spaces must continue to be a critical element of our strategic thinking. A truly integrated approach to institutional success means that facilities, finance and planning leaders must continue to be part of the collaborative leadership team and help to guide the direction of the institution going forward. 

What future trends are forecast when it comes to campus facilities projects at most institutions? 

The assumption for decades has been continual institutional growth and expansion based upon enrollment growth and reliable government investment. In the past, there were short-term slowdowns during recessions, but what we’re seeing now is much more long-term. The student population is forecast to decline or contract for the next 15-18 years. Campus projects need to be carefully targeted and coordinated, considering the very different landscape that is ahead of us. 

As for the backlog of deferred renewal projects facing many campuses, it is unrealistic for higher ed leaders to imagine removing or resolving all of them. Project prioritization must be utilized that focuses on those key transformational initiatives that will address risk, align with future aspirations and serve to the greatest extent possible an evolving student population. 

For the first time, many institutions are also looking at a contraction of the campus footprint, with less physical space needed for face-to-face teaching and learning and the expansion of remote work solutions for a number of administration functions. All programs will not be curtailed, but the way that many of them are delivered will evolve. Flexibility here is paramount. 

Students continue to gravitate toward larger institutions, seeking both community and stability. More smaller schools will combine or be consolidated into larger institutions, while some close entirely. 

Why do campus facilities projects and initiatives need to move from being primarily lagging responses, to instead becoming leading elements? 

Too often, facilities activities have been reactive to institutional direction setting instead of helping to inform those leadership decisions. With stewardship demands growing so acute and embodied debt so great, facilities issues can no longer be reactive. It must move from a lagging activity to one that is part of the leading activities. 

The knowledge and insights of facilities and finance leaders need to be part of the decision-making going forward. The sheer scale of campus project needs, and the backlog of deferred maintenance, have become extraordinary risks to the mission. If we’re not considering these issues in planning for the future, student, scholarship and research success will all face dire consequences. It’s essential that an understanding of those facilities risks and concerns—as well as opportunities they could afford—are included in the institutional planning going forward. 

This may mean tempering aspirations which require unrealistic investment in the near term, but it also may mean identifying new opportunities for development that haven’t been considered before, as existing campus space conditions are leveraged in new ways. 

How do you initiate such a planning transformation? 

It’s crucial that institutional planning is fully integrated and includes all relevant voices, so that it is informed by a deeper understanding of the capacity of the institution to serve the mission. 

Even strategic and academic plans need to be created with an understanding of the risks and opportunities that the existing campus presents. Such plans, by their nature, are abstract aspirations for the future. While such aspiration is essential to innovation, it must today be more grounded and tempered by the capacity of the institution to fulfill those aspirations. The complex challenges presented by the combined pressure of aging facilities and severely constrained financials are, in fact, essential elements of the strategic reality, and decisions in these areas should be looked at as opportunities for enhancement and transformation. 

How can facilities and finance leaders ensure that they have a seat at the table? 

Responding to the pandemic demanded strong and collaborative leadership. People who couldn’t get a seat at the table in the past—particularly facilities leaders—were suddenly thrust into new positions of leadership and responsibility. Many facilities leaders revealed themselves to be not only capable of marshaling their teams to address space needs but also acting decisively and creatively in the best interest of the entire institution. 

Sustaining the collaboration that delivered an expedient transformation once thought impossible in higher education will allow a continuation of the innovative spirit institutions will require going forward. Facilities leaders should not squander the opportunity to build and expand on these new connections to meet the challenges of the future. There’s no going back to the status quo of the past. 

What business variables need to be included in the conversation to put facilities priorities and implications into meaningful context? 

As we collaborated with our colleagues at APPA, NACUBO and SCUP to research these issues, four variables have risen to the top as the most important: Embodied Debt, Risk Exposure, Future Program Compatibility, and Adaptability. 

Embodied Debt is the obligations already present within your built environment that can demand attention on its own schedule if not carefully managed. Risk Exposure requires an honest conversation about the capacity to endure failures at the potential cost of the program, unplanned investment disruption and even personal safety. Future Program Compatibility recognizes that the work of the community will continue to change ever more quickly, and it is exceedingly important to focus on the future and not plan to hold on too hard to the past. Adaptability in buildings is more urgent than ever as the cost of bespoke space rises and the rate at which program change is happening continues to accelerate. 

Considering these four variables can inform strategic thinking for the best possible direction setting. 

What actions can be taken to safeguard and sustain these new planning practices in the future? 

The steps are many, but along with our colleague associations, we suggest that institutional leaders organize their future thinking around three main ideas. 

1. Plans for Place: thinking about the process and what should be considered to ensure an integration of these issues into overall campus planning practices. 
2. Resources for Service: an evaluation of the investment decisions being made to optimize the care of what is in place to ensure its greatest durability where appropriate and to determine the most efficient use of resources necessary to do so. 
3. Assessment for Stewardship: consideration of the methods, metrics and measures being used to understand, sustain and inform this essential decision-making about the built environment. 

Interested in learning more? Download the white paper from Gordian, APPA and NACUBO, “Finance, Facilities and Planning: Rethinking the Framework for Collaboration in Higher Ed.”